In 1998, one year after stepping down as Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten published East and West, a chronicle of his experiences in the former British colony. In chapter 2 Patten gives the following description: "... One after another, Chinese officials would accuse me of having broken the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. `How have I done so?' I would respond ....`Well,' they would usually claim somewhat lamely, `you have at least broken the spirit of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.' `What do you mean by the spirit? Do you just mean that you disagree with me? Why not then discuss what I have done? Put forward your own proposals.' `We cannot put forward our own proposals until you return to the spirit of the text.' The circles spun and looped; the arguments twisted and turned; the greased pig wriggled about the room; defying capture."
Reading the book is a sobering experience, even four and half years after the handover. One can give a highly accurate description of the cross-strait situation by simply substituting "Joint Declaration and Basic Law" with "1992 consensus" -- the purported agreement that continues to stir up controversy across the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese Communist Party uses the same negotiation tactics against Taiwan, as it did with the British. One has to wonder whether the controversy over whether there was ever a "1992 consensus" is simply part of Beijing's propaganda and psychological warfare -- and a complete waste of time.
If the Chen Shui-bian (
The dispute is simply aimed at misleading the Taiwanese and the international community. Nevertheless, we hear some in the international community, who know little about the "1992 consensus" and yet are too willing to spout off about it.
Recently, a senior US official in Washington DC told a reporter from Taiwan: "Of course, the two sides had a `most basic consensus' before they held the Koo-Wang talks." The remarks came at a sensitive time in Taiwan's election campaign. The pro-unification media in Taiwan magnified the significance of these remarks by giving them extensive coverage. Beneath the headlines, however, one was hard put to find any clue as to the meaning of the so-called consensus. The official did not explain, but the damage was already done.
The motive of Taiwan's pro-unification media was clear: they wanted to use Uncle Sam's words to teach the Chen government a lesson. At the same time, many of Beijing's stooges who are candidates in the elections are using the US official's remarks to attack their rivals.
In fact, we know from the statements of former president Lee Teng-hui (
US officials should take the time to read Patten's book and learn from his Hong Kong experience. The US should neither force Taiwan to the negotiation table nor subject it to humiliation before China removes all of its pre-conditions and begins to interact rationally with Taiwan and the rest of the world. US officials should also be careful about the content and timing of their remarks lest they become Beijing's accomplices.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS